Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Newsjock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:29 AM
Original message
Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says
Source: Los Angeles Times

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed.

... Federal judges are bound by law to disclose the source of spousal income, according to Stephen Gillers, a professor at NYU School of Law. Thomas' omission which could be interpreted as a violation of that law could lead to some form of penalty, Gillers said.

"It wasn't a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife's source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission," Gillers said. "It could not have been an oversight."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. And the "price" he'll pay for this is... oh, about nothing.
I mean, it's not like he's a Democrat, or worse, a "liberal" (they used to have those in the Democratic party, btw...), doncha know...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. exactly
nothing will happen. they don't give a flying rat's ass either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
34. Wesley Snipes...Martha Stewart
Don Seigleman...two americas. One justice system for democrats. Another one for republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HowHasItComeToThis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #34
73. IT SEEMS THAT I GET MORE ENRAGED EVERY HOUR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alphafemale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #34
141. I wouldn't include Wes in any victim list
He advocated pretty strongly for being in prison.

It's a pretty bad idea to be a famous person and say several times on TV that the Income Tax is illegal and that's why you haven't paid it and why no one else should pay it. If he weren't black and liberal he'd be a teabagger poster child.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #141
165. can't call Martha a victim either. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
134. Congress will pass a law saying Supreme Court justices and their spouses don't have to pay taxes.
They'll make it retroactive.

That's how it's done in the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #134
162. I think this is about disclosing the income on SC forms - the purpose being
sunlight - and make it clear if he needs to recluse himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
137. If he was a Democrat this would be a scandal and the media
would be screaming everywhere, constantly until he resigned from the bench. Every talking head would be sadly saying what a shame this was and how poorly this reflects on the proud integrity of the Supreme Court.

But he's a Republican, so it will never get any media attention, and if any talking head is somehow forced to even admit this happened s/he will downplay it as if it is an insignificant private matter.

Double Standards have very real impacts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
139. Exactly. Pres Obama doesnt want to look back. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #139
149. What, precisely, could President Obama do about this, anyway?
You seem ready to accuse him, but given the facts at hand, what precisely would you like President Obama to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #149
154. He is the fucking Pres of the USofA. He could do a lot. But he wont. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #154
158. What? Tell us what he could do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #154
160. So now he is responsible to personally monitor every
American citizen and their tax paying habits?

This is the job of the IRS to go after Thomas and his wife. The IRS will go after you and me so why not them.

If you want to hate just hate, you don't need to use this as an excuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #160
163. It's the SC disclosure form - the money was on the IRS forms
This is not trivial. Those forms are public to make conflicts of interest public, but it has nothing to do with not paying taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #163
166. I agree that it is not trivial
but it is not the Presidents job to go after individuals that is why the IRS has it's own investigators etc.

Think about if President Obama went after Republican Thomas the right would claim it was politically motivated, just as we would if it were a Republican president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. Can we impeach him yet?
Please?

Honestly if the Citizens United ruling doesn't do it, what the hell would?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimlup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
27. Nothing will be done but we should realize that
If the tables were turned, the Republicans would impeach the Justice. Seriously, one party takes the high road and the other takes the extremely lowest swamp land while throwing feces. Stupid Republican monkeys. Woops, sorry monkeys I didn't mean to insult you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #27
41. The way the President has it planned, nothing has to be done.
No Republican Senator has a 2012 reelection in the bag, and won't, thanks to the President skewering them on the middle class tax cut issue. Two years from now, 70% of Americans are going to understand that a vote for a Republican is a vote to raise their own taxes. All of the half dozen of so moderate Republican Senators (especially Maine) will have to consider switching sides to stay relevant.

And if we can pull in 12 seats, unlikely as that sounds right now, that's it. Scalia and Thomas will announce their retirements before any proceedings can take place. They are both too smart and too self-conscious to allow their tenures to be marred by an impeachment that has half a chance of going anywhere. So they will just leave--at the exact same time that the President can name virtually anyone in their places without a chance of opposition.

This is going to be the best-played election season any of us have ever seen, and I know that because the hard work has already been done.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. I'd believe you if
the terrorists didn't own the media outlets and vote tabulating machinery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #43
70. The Wizard
Reality . Thank you. We won't have democracy until we have fair elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FailureToCommunicate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #41
47. Wow! I guess YOUR glass is half full...
Thanks you a refreshing bit of optimism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #41
49. is this like fantasy football
where you play a game that has little resemblance to reality?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #41
55. Obama called me just this morning
We discussed your post. He said that he agreed that "the hard work has already been done," and then snorted loudly. It sounded like he was laughing. I asked if he were OK, and he said he just choked a little on a pretzel. It was a good chat. Next time, we'll try to loop you in on a conference call.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #41
63. From Your Lips to God's Ears
that's a mighty slim reed to hang one's hopes and future on. Still, stranger things have happened.

This could all be done much faster and simpler if this Administration had a clue or a principle...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #63
71. The administration does have a clue.
It should be called the clinton administration. Clinton retreads everywhere. Hillary couldn't beat Obama in even an unfair election..so they just installed clintonistas with Obama as the figurehead.Did you notice in the states that used electronic voting machines in the primaries..it was all hillary all the time. Caucus ...went to obama. Harder to steal. Hill and bill have tried to do away with caucuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #71
93. I'll agree with you on everything except
the total, final blame on the Clintons.

All this neither began nor will end with the Clintons, they are just cogs in the machinery too
They're just something nice, obvious and best of all already controversial to point at while the deliberate think-tanks & funders --the real evildoers-- sit in their relative anonymity & laugh at how easily we're led by the nose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimlup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #41
65. I wish what you were saying were true
But I fear that it is not. You are making the assumption that the American people will apply logic. They are not particularly prone to higher reasoning as a mass. I understand your argument but I fear that you are wrong, dreadfully wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #41
72. I hope you are correct. I often see the play behind the scenes in
what President Obama is doing. He gives them the rope - they use it at their own risk. On most issues they come out looking like the enemy. No we do not get everything we want but if we should get a second term with the house and senate in our own hands then watch us shine. Very few presidents have been able to get everything in their first term. My dad used to point out that it took FDR 4 terms. That is why they changed the law to only 8 consecutive years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #41
90. Ah yes, that multi-dimensional chess
that we misunderstanding peons have heard so much about.

It's all worked absolute wonders so far, hasn't it?
Like say.... the midterm elections?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernlights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #90
132. it worked real well on the tax cuts too...
extend them for the wealthiest. Raise them for the poorest. What a magical chess game that was.

Next up: social insecurity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArcticFox Donating Member (654 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #41
100. High hopes, but fat chance
Impeachment has to start in the house. All this discussion of the senate means nothing unless the house changes hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CanonRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #41
107. I love optimists
they are so refreshing. Here's to hoping you are right. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #41
109. BS. There is no chance in hell that that will happen. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RayStar Donating Member (195 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #41
111. You are onto something
You make a good point Sofa King. If Scalia leaves thomas will follow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #111
155. Yeah meth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #41
117. Hey, not a damned one of you has to believe me. It's going to happen anyway.
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 03:35 PM by sofa king
Just watch the circus as it unfolds. Watch the ignorant teabaggers haul weapons into Congress and introduce insane and stupid bills which will become the bread and butter of the media. Watch this annoyingly moderate President start skewering the Republicans on every single 70-30 issue there is, from health care to taxes to benefits packages.

Here's how I know it's going to happen: because it already has happened. The taxes for the rich issue? That one is already in the bag. The Republicans held our taxes hostage for a vanishingly small 3% of the population that counts for all of the money, but practically none of the votes. The Republicans cannot redeem themselves, because the Democrats in the Senate control when a saving vote for the Republican Senators will come, and that will be FUCKING NEVER.

End of story. Seven out of ten voters in every state will watch every single Republican twist on the vine on this issue--the rest are too stupid and evil to engage. Fifty million voters got the best raise they've had in years thanks to the Dems raising the minimum wage. Half of us have no health care and are watching right now as the Republicans try to keep it that way. Everyone who gets a job in the next two years will thank the Dems, while everyone who gets fired will be fired by a Republican. All of us are going to take note as disgusting candidates like Gingrich, Palin, and Santorum attract insane amounts of corporate cash while thumping nakedly divisive and racist issues.

But here's the thing: you can only lie to voters as long as the truth hasn't bit them in the ass already--and it has; you can only steal an election in America by getting close enough to steal it--and they won't; you can only frighten people who have something to lose--and millions of us don't have anything left to lose anymore. The ruse has worn thin. President Obama isn't just going to win, he's on a 500+ electoral vote trajectory, with coattails 5,000 miles long.

The hard work was drawing his opponent into the uncomfortable position of having to sacrifice its electoral viability in exchange for keeping rich assholes rich. He already did that, and the Republicans cannot make that go away, and they cannot make us forget it. We should allow ourselves to enjoy this time, because the years 2010-2012 are going to be the textbook example of how to overcome a corrupt oligarchy by generating overwhelming public support against it.

And you don't even have to believe me, 'cause I'll be right here to tell your dumb asses "I told you so" in November 2012. And when Thomas and Scalia announce their retirements just before Christmas of that year, I'll tell you again.

Edit: 2014. I'll give myself until 2014, because the Republicans in the Senate will be defending 23 seats over the next two elections. I'm betting they'll lose at least half of those, which will push Dems in the Senate into the 65-67 seat territory by January 2015, by which point every Bush v. Gore Republican on the Supreme Court will have to go or risk being kicked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #117
128. Why don't you link to your predictions for 2010?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #128
145. Okay.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=102&topic_id=4706096&mesg_id=4706596

That was Bush's 33% "basement," and it's why the GOP will never go away. If they all vote, they can easily approach the 50% necessary to win an election due to our historically low voter turnout, even without the help of institutionalized election theft. And all it takes to motivate them is stoking the fires of their hatred and prejudice. I guarantee you that they will line up in 2010 to try to cut the legs out from under President Obama's Congress, just as we did in 2006. June 22, 2010

I didn't say too much about the last mid term election because I knew it didn't look good. Or at least that's what I wish to believe after the fact.

Instead, I diverted myself with other puerile predictions which proved alarmingly accurate, like celebrity TSA scans getting loose on the Internet before New Years' Eve:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4624534&mesg_id=4625408
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. Thanks! Interesting posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #117
135. damn dude... i'll have some of what your smokin
let's hope your right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sofa king Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #135
148. Fingers crossed.
The ultimate point to all of this is, just as we all suspected, there was in fact a reward mechanism for the corrupt Justices who selected Bush and Cheney. It's only a matter of time before we find out what the rest of them got.

Rewarded for an election theft. Think how hard Fox News is going to have to spin that for the next two years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
115. That's a whopping amount! $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 03:11 PM by The Wielding Truth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
3. If they try to charge him with tax evasion he can fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Well, that's fair.
I mean, he would recuse himself, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quarbis Donating Member (235 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. NO
he would not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. ...which is why SC justices are exempt from a lot of requirements of federal judges /nt
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 02:23 AM by jberryhill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:27 AM
Original message
I think I found something of note---I think these payments are actually to Justice Thomas.

For speeches like this---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zssxz-oND7k

I'd love to see the 'work' done by Ginny Thomas for Heritage....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. I don't think it was an income tax thing, just a disclosure of income? I'm guessing
she paid income tax on her earnings? :shrug:

I could be wrong, and I hope I am. :7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #10
39. They likely file income taxes jointly.
But even if they filed separately, so long as her income was declared somewhere, his "omission" on the disclosure form was clearly deliberate because that income was "noninvestment" income and was not otherwise exempt from taxation. Of course, it could be that he "misunderstood" what "noninvestment income" means. He is, after all, an incompetent moron, which is the principal reason he should never even have been nominated to the USSC. Or perhaps because her work continues to ensure his financial well-being, he considered it "investment income." :crazy:

Whatever "excuse" he gives - or even if he gives none at all, it will satisfy Republicans. Now, if he were even a halfway liberal justice, Reps would be calling for his head. We all know that.

Now, if her income was not declared at all - my hope is the same as yours - :evilgrin: - it would be tax evasion/fraud, as well as deliberate failure to disclose. Of course, the RW would still find some reason to justify it.

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #39
45. When you say "halfway liberal"
You're using their frame.
Thomas is a right wing extremist, and Republicans would march in lockstep to remove anyone for any perceived infraction who might be deemed fair and honest.
Never use their framing. It's like feeding steroids to a rabid pit bull.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueMTexpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #45
124. Good points ... thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #39
77. Maybe they just considered it 'investment' income.
hmm, what kind of investment could that be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #39
87. Understood that the omission was obviously deliberate, but my guess was
that it wasn't a failure to report income on his tax return, so that makes me wonder what we CAN nail him on! I hate to see this golden opportunity slip through the cracks. :7

And yeah, the RW seems to wiggle out of tax evasion charges with relative ease. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #10
56. You are correct--the income was reported, not disclosed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PSzymeczek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:34 AM
Response to Original message
7. Clarence Thomas must be impeached,
and replaced by Anita Hill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
161. Well, I don't know her record but I do love your sense of irony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:02 AM
Response to Original message
9. FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS! We have to raise holy hell about this! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
23. What happens when a sitting SCOTUS Justice is found to have known about something like this?
Does he lose his seat on the Court when he goes to jail (if convicted of something, somehow), does the seat remain empty during his sentence, does Obama (or his successor) get to nominate an interim Justice.....?

Does the Constitution answer any of these questions? I know a sitting Justice can be impeached, but does the Constitution mention situations including cases of criminal convictions among Justices?

This is actually an interesting question. Basically, what happens when a sitting Justice goes to jail?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #23
85. God - I wish I knew what was supposed to happen so we can make sure that
it does!

I'm sure the legal minds will weigh in on this (if it's covered!) - I'd like to hear what Turley has to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
felinetta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #85
122. Too bad we don't have Keith to investigate on TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:05 AM
Response to Original message
11. That means he lied on his disclosure forms.
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 03:06 AM by JDPriestly
Complianceow whether Supreme Court Judges are subject to any ethical code. Perhaps by definition, one who serves among the highest judge in the country are expected to have their own deep moral and ethical sense.

We are really in trouble when Supreme Court judges do not act according to the very highest ethical standards.

Guide to Judiciary Policy, including Vol. 2A, Ch. 2 Pages 7-8

This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the Compliance section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.
. . .

Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

. . .

Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:
. . .
(c) the judge knows that the judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judges spouse or minor child residing in the judges household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
(d) the judge or the judges spouse, or a person related to either within the third degree of relationship, or the spouse of such a person is:

(iii) known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; or

http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduct/Vol02A-Ch02.pdf

Ethics for
Federal Judicial
Law Clerks
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER 2002

Conflicts of Interest

Canon 3F(1) advises judicial employees, including law
clerks, to avoid conflicts of interest. Conflicts arise when you
know that youor your spouse or other close relativemight
be so personally or financially affected by a matter that a reasonable
person would question your ability to perform official
duties impartially. This includes owning even one share of stock
in a party. Members of your household in a similarly close
relationship may also give rise to conflicts concerns.
Canon 3F(2) contains specific restrictions applicable to law
clerks. You should not perform official duties where:
. . .
your spouse or minor child residing in your household
has a financial interest in the subject matter or in a party
to the case;
. . .
you or a close relative is a party, lawyer, or material witness,
or has an interest that could be affected substantially
by the outcome.
. . .
You or your spouse or minor resident child own stock
in a company that is a party before your judge
Your spouse represents a party in a proceeding before
your judge

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/fjc/ethics01.pdf

Thomas is bringing this to light now so that it will be old news when Democrats regain the House in two years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proletariatprincess Donating Member (527 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:22 AM
Response to Original message
12. Thomas should have been impeaced in 2000....
for not recusing himself in the Bush v. Gore decision while his son was a state Campaign chairman for Bush. This court, like the other 3 branches of government, is a failed institution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:57 AM
Original message
Clarence Thomas should have been impeached along with all
the other SC justices who selected bush for president. It went against the constitution. Stop the vote. Select a president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
35. Clarence Thomas should have been impeached along with all
the other SC justices who selected bush for president. It went against the constitution. Stop the vote. Select a president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
102. I think you meant Scalia's son who worked for a law firm repping Bush?
I don't remember hearing about Clarence Thomas's son involved in Bush campaign though. Google returned nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
121. How about just some jail time for tax evasion? Just like Al Capone
"Judge" Thom-ass has proven to be a liar, a hypocrite, a poor judge, and corrupt to the core. Never should have been confirmed. Justice Dept. should go after him to keep it out of the political realm. Let's all give Holder a call :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #12
143. Damn right. And his wife consequently was hired by BushCo. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:22 AM
Response to Original message
13. Why is it that we make a $20 mistake and the IRS catches it and this
is not noticed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
former9thward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
129. This is not an IRS issue. It is a court disclosure issue.
If taxes were paid the IRS would have nothing to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:33 AM
Response to Original message
14. He can do whatever he wants...
He's a wealthy high ranking republican and so he's above the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:53 AM
Response to Original message
15. The USA is not a nation of justice domestic nor foreign.
I wish I knew a solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:07 AM
Response to Original message
16. Please get him for tax evasion. Just like that other gangster...
What was his name?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
36. Al Capone
Brought down for Tax evasion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #16
57. He didn't evade taxes--he failed to disclose an economic relationship. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #57
103. Damn. Can we get him for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #103
113. Well, I have a theory on how criminal charges, and not just impeachment could result.....
If, Ginny was funneled money to pay Justice Thomas for acts like this--


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zssxz-oND7k

then criminal charges could be pursued.

Now, one would have to document the 'work' Ginny Thomas did for Heritage, see if she did anything to actually earn a salary...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #57
123. Huh? he was charged and plead guilty to tax evasion and prohibition charges
"Meanwhile, the U.S. Treasury Department had been developing evidence on tax evasion chargesin addition to Al Capone, his brother Ralph "Bottles" Capone, Jake "Greasy Thumb" Guzik, Frank Nitti, and other mobsters were subjects of tax evasion charges.

On June 16, 1931, Al Capone pled guilty to tax evasion and prohibition charges. "

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/al-capone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #123
150. I wasn't speaking of Capone. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
17. Republicon shirkers - once again FAILing their responsibilities to America
Republicons = shirkers & grifters....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LawnKorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:04 AM
Response to Original message
18. "could lead to some form of penalty" - How about impeachment for starters?
Gillers said. "It could not have been an oversight."


Eric Holder needs to take Justice Thomas before a Grand Jury and have him impeached. After impeachment, Thomas should be prosecuted for income tax evasion and sent to Leavenworth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #18
58. Okay--grand juries don't impeach. And Thomas didn't evade his taxes.
Yes, skewer the bastard with what can be done, but let's stick to facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #18
62. Eric Holder cannot impeach a judge and would not bring him
before a grand jury. Please read the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:08 AM
Response to Original message
19. But Anita Hill was lying.
yeah. uh-huh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
20. So does he get tossed from the bench for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. I would hope the man would at least stand trial on his own for it.
I'll put $50 down right now on no charges against him ever being filed.

Of course, no sane person would lay money on him being charged for this now or at any time in the future, so I know my money is safe.

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nuxvomica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
21. I don't think it was deliberate on Thomas's part
I think he was just ignorant of the law. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demwing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #21
37. WOOP!
there it is.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toddwv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #21
94. +1
For best post in this thread. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
22. Taxes are for the little people!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #22
28. To be absolutely fair...
There is no indication that the taxes on that income were not paid.

Yes, he should face whatever penalty is outlined for the failure to disclose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlyByNight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
25. "It could not have been an oversight."
There will be no accountability for this, typically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greiner3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
26. "could lead to some form of penalty..."
Or as the old Cheech and Chong routine suggested; 'Whack his pee-pee.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
29. So what? He's one of the anointed. He shouldn't have to follow laws of mere mortals.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
30. I guess he doesn't know the law on those matters
Oh--then why is he sitting in judgment on a bench with 8 others who have the final say-so on, wait for it------LAW!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
31. Disbar him. They did it to Clinton.
He might not lose his seat over that, but it would send a message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
32. Short of
murder or pedophilia, right wing individuals live a special standard of justice. Even then, evidence of murder or pedophilia would likely go un-investigated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
33. Straight couples are Sanctified by Goddy God sez Obama
And of course Clarence is a Republican, Obama claims they can do no wrong, plus we'd have to look backward instead of forward, and of course Clarence is a Christian, and they are above all reproach. So move the fuck along!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
38. Wait. A conservative. Breaking the law?!? How unheard of...
Gosh, I just can't believe that a right winger would commit an act of malfeasance. This must be the first time such a thing has happened?

It just goes to show that (when Repudlicans are in office) government "just doesn't work."
:sarcasm: <==== for the sarcasm challenged among us...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
40. A felon is a judge in the highest court in the land.
Our "Justice" system is rotten to the core like our neglected infrastructure. The neoCONs don't just want Obama to fail they are working hard to make America fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
42. Crooks and liars, every one.
republicans disgust me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarinCoUSA Donating Member (783 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
44. That means the other con judges m/b palling around with a liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chimichurri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
46. He is an embarrassment to the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JudyM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #46
152. He's an embarassment to lawyers, period. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FailureToCommunicate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
48. At least he is a hard working Justice...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1American Donating Member (154 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
50. Clarence! Shame!
Ooooooh you bad boy! Shamey shamey shamey........BTW, do you report the lobbyist money you get from under the bench?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
edhopper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
51. One of the problems is the "liberal media"
is really the Washington establishment media. They always protect their own. Whereas Fox would take something like this and hammer it for days. The Insider Washington media will stay away from this story.
And of course the Obama administration will do anything to avoid angering conservatives, so they won't touch it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orbitalman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
52. How can we possibly have any confidence in his rulings???????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
53. Maybe she was working for Long Dong Silver?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #53
69. LOL - I've seen a Long Dong Silver flick
My first though was - that thing ain't real! Hahahahaaaa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
54. grounds for impeachment??
Please please?

Tax evasion should be, shouldn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
James48 Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #54
67. Depends.
It's a reporting failure, not a tax evasion.

However, it COULD be a violation under 18 USC 208. That is a felony.

Five years in Prison.

And conviction on THAT would be an impeachable offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #67
76. How is "not reporting" different from "evading?" n/t
Is this legalese?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
James48 Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #76
82. Answer:
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 11:53 AM by James48
"NOT reporting" - not telling your employer that the money was made. Most federal employees have to report to their department's ethics officers whenever they or their family makes any money outside of government employment.

"evading" means not paying taxes on those earnings.

No one is saying he didn't pay taxes.

He didn't report the income to his employer's ethics office.

We federal employees have to fill out this reporting form every year, and it has nothing to do with taxes.

This isn't a TAX case. It's an ethics reporting violation case.

Still, if he didn't recuse himself from cases that Heritage Foundation filed briefs on (Citizen's United is such a case), then he could be cited for criminal conflict of interest under 18 USC 208, and that's punishable by up to a five year felony under 18 USC 216.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #82
106. Thank you for the clarity of your explanation.
Much appreciated! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #67
83. but if you deliberately fail to report
isn't that tax evasion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #54
75. It's a federal tax, so evading paying it should be a federal offense.

It's really hard to believe he thought he could get by with this -- if the feds let this slide, the IRS has no hope of capturing ANY taxes from any high-income citizens.

Maybe Long Dong thinks you don't have to pay taxes on money you intend to stuff into Swiss Bank Accounts?

Maybe it's normal to have contempt for a job you can lie your way into?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #75
80. It's not a tax at all
SC justices are required to disclose their spouses income. He didn't. That disclosure requirement has nothing to do with taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #80
105. Thanks -- I misunderstood what financial document this was.

I'm too eager to believe bad things about Clarence, I guess. My bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
59. I wonder if the payments to her were a way to funnel payment to him for speeches--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
60. I guess $700K is nothing for Thomas. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NeonDog Donating Member (88 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
61. Well paid to make harassing phone calls to Anita Hill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
64. IOKIYARSCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
James48 Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
66. Criminal charges under 18 USC section 208
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 10:58 AM by James48
Failing to report isn't a crime, but if Heritage Foundation has ANY INTEREST in ANY CASE heard by Thomas during the time period, you could make the argument that he is in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Section 208. If it was not intentional, the punishment is up to a year in prison. If it was intentional, the punishment is FIVE years in prison.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000208----000-.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BetsysGhost Donating Member (176 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #66
84. interesting
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #66
112. Except that he did the report the income. He just didn't disclose it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
68. He must be impeached - if not?
If he's not impeached why should we bother to vote for Democrats in the next elections? Maybe a President named Palin (I shudder at the thought) will force the Democrats to grow a pair of balls again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
74. He didn't lie about it, it was a "dramatic omission"
Well, Thomas should be happy. They're treating him like a white man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BetsysGhost Donating Member (176 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #74
86. whoa!
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
78. I think the upshot is, anyone involved in any cases he decided during that period
Edited on Sat Jan-22-11 11:49 AM by snot
who could show Thomas should have recused himself based on conflict of interest should be able to complain and get a re-hearing before the other justices (i.e., MINUS Thomas).

E.g., if, say, I'd been a party in a suit, and the Heritage Foundation or one of its major funders had been on the other side, and Thomas had participated in deciding the case and had voted in favor of the Heritage Foundation side, and that side had won in the case. Then I'd be in a position to complain that he may have been biased and that such bias actually harmed me. (If Heritage or its affiliates were not involved in the case, or if Thomas had voted in my favor, I'd have no basis to claim any harm to me personally.)

Technically, also, Thomas would have breached ethical rules against allowing there to be an "appearance of impropriety." As others have suggested, it's not clear who might be complained to about that, except perhaps the other justices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
79. Can he be impeached?
You know that if the shoe were on the other foot the Repukes would be impeaching.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bulloney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
81. Paging Darrell Issa! Paging Darell Issa!
Does anyone think the Congressional Carjacker will ever bring this topic up?

Nah, he's too busy conducting his partisan witch hunts on Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
88. 'about' nothing?
Naw... just plain nothing. Singular. No big deal.
He'll pay, in any way, nothing at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
89. Income Tax Evasion...
Last I heard,you could get into some trouble for that. I wonder if the IRS has been calling his home, or his place of work.

Not...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #89
114. Except that he did the report the income. He just didn't disclose it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #114
126. If he paid taxes, then the only problem is a conflict of interest.
And there is no rule that says a Supreme must step down in a conflict of interest that I know of. There should be ethics rules of judges on the highest court. Now, if someone who had a case before the court feels he voted due to unfair influence, they could sue him.

Even in what looks like a clear case, the House will not impeach him, even if Democrats still controlled it. And the Senate would not convict him.

It is one of the things about our system that is tragically broken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #126
131. I think something criminal might be going on though--money paid to HER, for HIS
services.

Like when he spoke to Heritage---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zssxz-oND7k

I'd like to see what work Ginny supposedly did for Heritage..aand using that line of inquiry, what other conflicts result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indievoter Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
91. Not Tax Evasion
Guys He didn't fail to pay taxes. Thats not what this is. This is a disclosure form for the Supreme Court itself. It's a stretch to even get it seen as a violation of law. Thats why in the article it says "could be interpreted as a violation of the law" and if the people doing the "interpreting" have what appears to be a vested political interest in seeing Thomas out then it's even more likely to go no where. There wouldn't be a strong case bottom line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faygo Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
92. He can do anything he wants. He is above the law.
"No man is above the law." Yeah, right. Many clearly are, and that certainly includes right wing Supreme Court justices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
95. IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH IMPEACH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bongbong Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
96. Here's the only penalty Uncle Tom will pay
Fat Tony will walk up to and say "They're going to impeach you!". Uncle Clarence will get very scared, some more of his hair will turn white, and then Fat Tony will say "Early April Fools! HA HA As per normal procedure, you won't have anything bad happen to you, but you will actually gain from it because you'll be able to get more speaking fees for whining about the evil libs doing this to you!"

Uncle Tom will laugh so hard he'll have a minor hernia, which will be fixed at taxpayer expense. That is the only penalty he'll have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
97. I accidentally hit the Unrecommend..damn it

The least I can do is KICK this thread!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dollface Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
98. Sometimes I wish I were prone to violence but I even carry spiders outside.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benld74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
99. Anyone THAT stupid doesnt deserve to sit behind a school desk let alone a SCOTUS desk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
101. Sounds like grounds for impeachment to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
104. No, it wasn't an oversight. He snubs his nose at us every day.
It's compulsive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
placton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
108. shhhh! this is all in the PAST
and we won't waste time with that - but look forward!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #108
116. +
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stockholmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
110. IMPEACH him, and Tiny Tim 'Turbo Tax' Geithner the tax cheat as well
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disintermedia8 Donating Member (174 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
118. He will be impeached.
There is this and there is lying under oath at his confirmation about extramarital relations. As we know a former mistress has come out and confirmed everything that Anita Hill alleged. By the way where is Senator Alan Simpson these days with his famous faxes hanging out of his pockets from people aghast at Anita Hill's allegations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #118
130. Do you really think so?
I'd be delighted if it happened, but I don't see it. The Republican-controlled House won't even take up the issue, let alone vote to impeach him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
119. Impeach the scumbag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
felinetta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
120. And of course these arrogant asshats aren't showing up for the State of the Union.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
125. and the Dems will Let Him Get Away with It, Once again, Ignoring Corruption
and epode wonder how the GO gets away with so much... easy, the deems will do nothing about it. And doing nothing about corruption for political purposes just highlights how corrupt our own party leadership is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
somone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
127. Such a law-abiding jurist
What a damn crook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
133. $686,589? Chump change. What, does she work for tips or something?
How the hell is a guy sposed to keep track of every penny-ante little deal like that that slides by?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #133
144. Good point. And under Bush, almost 30 percent of that was taxed!
How's a millionaire gonna get by these days?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
136. Good topic for a Hearing at the Judiciary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
138. Where's Chris Mathews & Rachel when you need them or
is the entire M$M owned by Murdoch?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TxVietVet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
140. Where is the outrage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
142. IMPEACH NOW! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
147. Why Get Enraged, When Odds Are That NOTHING Will Be Done About This? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mommalegga Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
151. What amazes me if these public figures
whose every move is scrutized think they can to get away with it. That applies to all areas of life...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
153. Obama has nothing to do with it. Impeachment happens, or doesn't happen, in the House.
Which means that it won't happen.

I know that there's a contingent here that despises Obama and wants to blame him for anything and everything, but this really has nothing to do with him at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #153
156. The pres has the Patriot Act at his disposal and the domestic spying. dont tell me he has no blame
here. He is the most powerful man in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DavidDvorkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #156
157. What? What does that have to do with impeachment?
What are you saying he should do? What are you blaming him for not doing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
James48 Donating Member (517 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
159. Take out the trash day
And the story is dead by Monday morning.

Sad, sad day for America when the story can die that quickly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
164. Why haven't I heard one peep of this other than here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-25-11 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
167. He needs to be impeached.
Asshole
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 19th 2024, 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC